TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I live in a rented house. If my landlord sells I'm out on my ear. I'd like the law changed so that both the landlord and the tenant must see out the term of the lease and that 3 to 5 year terms were standard but under no circumstances should my landlord be forced to house me if I don't keep up my side of the deal or somehow undertake to house me for life.
So what are you proposing?
Can you answer this as well please?Do you subscribe to "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"? If so them that's communism. If not then your point above is nonsense.
Excellent, we agree on something; people do not have the right to housing.So you and the homeless lady would like the law changed so as to provide security of tenure? The details as to what that involves to be discussed, but the principle is there. You, like the homeless lady, want security of tenure.
Again, the context of the quote "a house for life" from the article was not determined. If it was a demand, then I would agree with you. But if it was an expression of a commonly held aspiration, then I see nothing wrong with it.
So what are you proposing?
You repeatedly assert that employers are under paying their employees and the state is subsidising that under payment. Can you explain what you mean?
That's two questions. Please answer both of them.
Can you answer this as well please?
Well it is according to Communists.Yes I would subscribe to that, but it is not communism. Not from what I understand communism to be anyway.
Can you answer my other questions please?Yes I would subscribe to that, but it is not communism. Not from what I understand communism to be anyway.
Well it is according to Communists.
See here.
Or maybe you are just a Marxist?
Socialism is, according to Marx, a lower stage of communism so maybe it's just that socialist stage of communism.
From my limited understanding of these things it was meant to be applied after the workers utopia had been achieved and people didn't need to work but rather chose to do so as it had become a pleasurable activity.
You need to go to the other related topic which is titled "23% of households are jobless", or something to that effect. In there, around p3 or p4, brendan burgess admits that the report was wrong to conclude, or be interpreted that 23% of households are jobless, when in fact the correct stat is 23% of 0-59yr olds live in jobless households.
Perhaps I did take some time to mention the rate of home care help, but I was busy before that trying to detach any notion of increasing car premiums to welfare dependency.
I have read that article again about the homeless campaigner and this is what is says
"She said she wanted the next property she and daughter lived in 'to be for life'"
If that is a demand then that is a sense of entitlement.
If it is just expressing a common held view amongst most people wishing to settle down and get on with their lives, free from the thought of possible eviction, then I see nothing wrong with it. As is explained in the article, housing provided through HAP leaves the tenant vunerable in the case where the property owner chooses to sell.
So you and the homeless lady would like the law changed so as to provide security of tenure? The details as to what that involves to be discussed, but the principle is there. You, like the homeless lady, want security of tenure.
Again, the context of the quote "a house for life" from the article was not determined. If it was a demand, then I would agree with you. But if it was an expression of a commonly held aspiration, then I see nothing wrong with it.
No, I wouldn’t. It’s socially unjust and undesirable. It damages society and inflicts poverty and suffering on people. For proof just look at every communist country ever. Look at Communist countries because the phrase is inherently communist.Well, you can call me a marxist or communist all you want, I dont get the point?
That is a slogan adopted by communists to which I would agree with, wouldnt you?
Why do you keep deflecting like this? “Our day will come” can mean anything depending on the context. It is completely different to a slogan which encapsulates a ideological dogma.Tiocfaidh ár lá is an Irish republican slogan, but if the Wicklow hurling team adopt it in relation to their pursuit of an all-ireland, does it make them supporters of the IRA?
Anyway, you asked me about that first slogan, I answered.
So in good turn, do you subscribe to that slogan? And if not why not?
You repeatedly assert that employers are under paying their employees and the state is subsidising that under payment. Can you explain what you mean?
That's two questions. Please answer both of them.
Can you answer my other questions please?
I don't need to go anywhere, because this topic is entitled "We must dismantle our culture of dependency" and you should thank the contributors in the other thread, for going into the very details that they did - but it doesn't change this topic.
Yes, you took a lot of time - maybe if you just concentrated on the topic, instead of continually dragging it off, then you might have spent your time and energy on productive discussion.
Which is exactly what I said, I never mentioned "security of tenure" because that is a different issue.
Yes it is a demand, because she has turned down two housing opportunities, because they do not fit what she wants. She wants a particular property, in particular area and she wants it for life - that isn't the problem though, the problem is that she wants the state to provide it.
She is demanding from the State, what most people are working hard to provide for themselves, by themselves. They share that view, but they don't demand that the state provide it - indeed, were it only the case that we could all go to the state with a wish list.
You are defending a culture of entitlement and a welfare dependency culture, like the populist parties who use these people as fodder to progress their own careers.
No, I wouldn’t. It’s socially unjust and undesirable. It damages society and inflicts poverty and suffering on people. For proof just look at every communist country ever. Look at Communist countries because the phrase is inherently communist.[\QUOTE]
Its just a slogan, and has a lot of merit to it. Communist countries would have collapsed with or without the slogan.
She turned down two properties because they were being provided through the HAP system, which in turn, left her vunerable to being evicted after 12 months at the whim of the landlord.
This does not provide for a stable environment, especially where children are concerned.
And as a campaigner, highlighting the plight of homeless people, it would be folly to accept accommodation under such conditions while simultaneously campaigning against a system that facilitates evictions after only 12 months at the whim of the landlord.
Read the article again, she makes no such demand. She is quoted as saying "to be for life", nothing else. It is the reporter that claims she was talking about her next home. She could have been talking about Graham Dwyers prison sentence for all we know. We dont know, because the reporter didnt print the full quote. Given the overall tone of the article, I wonder why?
I appreciate you dont want to face up to the fact that the OP has dismissed the initial detail of the NESC report, but at least he has admitted to being wrong and is even considering a request from another poster to contact the Indo.
Communist countries would not have been communist without it. It encapsulates what is means to be communist. If you think it has a lot of merit then you think that communism has a lot of merit. You are perfectly entitled to believe that of course; it's a free country and will remain so unless communists take power.Its just a slogan, and has a lot of merit to it. Communist countries would have collapsed with or without the slogan.
So what are you proposing?
You repeatedly assert that employers are under paying their employees and the state is subsidising that under payment. Can you explain what you mean?
That's two questions. Please answer both of them.
Can you answer this as well please?
3. Capitalism , nice handy way of
a. funny how they pretend its a free market, then slapping mortgage,bond debt etc onto Mr Citizen.
Not funny. Just true.b. funny how capitalism seems to have lifted a lot of boats?
It seems a little communism, a little socialism, a little capitalism and your corporatism mixed properly would give us utopianism !
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?